[Smt-talk] Progression at all?

[Darryl White]

Conor Cook wrote:

I think that thinking about our [VI-IV-{I-V]-VI-IV} entity might be
ill-served by talking of it as a progression at all, at least in its
repetitive form.  Is it not a chaconne or passacaglia?  Though I know that
these forms are made up of what we often term a "progression," it hardly
progresses anywhere.  It is the repetition that makes is fascinating, with
its interlocking extremes (witness the possibility of starting at two
different points).  While we do need to address the harmonic motion, let's
not forget that this is an old form, used to great effect.
____________

It's true that this succession of chords doesn't go anywhere but neither do
most strings of chords that we routinely call 'progressions.' This example
circulates in one place. Most progressions of tonal music do the same
thing; the only variable is the length of the cycle. To retain a scale,
mode, or key, and a handful of chords coextensive with that is to merely
circulate. What's more at issue is whether a cadence is ever reached.

Also, Jay Rahn made me wonder if we have examples of pop songs in which
this progression begins on IV or V. One advantage to both these options is
that the progression would end on vi or I.



-- 
Darryl White
University of Arizona
School of Music
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140502/44ae081a/attachment-0003.htm>